Do you think the film was too violent? Do you think the violence, including the bloody scenes and the explicit killings were necessary in the film? Why or why not?

Question

At first, I thought the film was too violent, but then it got me thinking that it was not that violent because it showed how dangerous crossing the border could be. The film shows that passing the border isn't easy, and you have to do things you didn't plan to do to pass the desert and have a better life than you had back home. Without the violence, it's almost like they would put a "filter" and show the danger that lies ahead crossing the border.
what can I reply to this?

Answer 1

You make a compelling point about the role of violence in the film. It seems that the explicit depictions of danger and brutality serve to highlight the harsh realities that many face when attempting to cross the border. Instead of glamorizing or romanticizing the journey, the film presents a raw and unfiltered perspective that can provoke thought and evoke empathy in viewers.

While some might argue that the violence was excessive or gratuitous, I can see how it might be necessary to convey the gravity of the situation. It forces the audience to confront the risks and moral complexities involved in such a perilous journey. Ultimately, the effectiveness of the violence in the film may lie in how it challenges viewers to reflect on broader societal issues surrounding immigration and exploitation.

What do you think about how the film balances its message with the portrayal of violence? Do you think there was a point where it crossed the line, or do you feel it was consistent with its narrative goals?